Netherlands: When the Questions Become the Crime

More problematic is that it reaches a point where discussion or debate is impossible because the questions themselves become a crime.

Such laws not only run counter to the basic principles of democracy; they are, in many instances, representative of a duplicitous selective application of the law. Why are the prosecutors not going after Yasmina Haifi, who tweeted that ISIS is a Zionist plot? Is the criminalization of hate speech now dependent only on whom you hate?

The people are entitled to a country in which they can voice their frustration and be heard.

Last March, Geert Wilders, the controversial right-wing Dutch Parliamentarian best known for his stance against Muslims and Muslim immigration, stood before supporters at a campaign rally and asked a simple question: "Do you want more Moroccans, or fewer?"

He expected the question to raise enthusiasm among the crowd, and drive his party to greater Parliamentary success. It has also possibly landed him before the courts, to be tried for "hate speech" -- a crime in the Netherlands, which, despite its claims of "freedom of speech," still criminalizes speech that "offends" on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or even personal convictions and ideology.

Wilders, however, didn't make a statement: he simply asked others what they wanted. It was the Dutch people themselves who, in response, cried out, "Fewer! Fewer!"

Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, which may result in criminal charges of "hate speech" against him. (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)

More problematic is that the prosecution of Wilders's query goes beyond the standard concerns about political correctness. It reaches a point where discussion or debate is impossible because the questions themselves become a crime.

But aren't discussion and debate exactly what democracy is supposed to be about?

The pending case also rips open other problems with European -- and particularly The Netherlands' -- limits on free expression. Restrictions have, in recent years, grown more repressive in response to allegations of "Islamophobia" and attempts by many in Europe's Muslim communities to censor expressions they consider offensive to Islam.

But is the cry of "fewer" really "hate speech"? Or is it the expression of a "personal conviction," perhaps based on a nationalist "ideology," held by many in the crowd -- and therefore, under Dutch laws, protected?

Such laws not only run counter to the basic principles of democracy; they are, in many instances, representative of a duplicitous selective application of the law in Europe. Why are prosecutors going after Wilders, and not, say, after Yasmina Haifi, a (now-former) Dutch intelligence agency employee who in August tweeted that ISIS is Zionist plot -- and insisted that "there is plenty of evidence for this"?

Is the criminalization of hate speech in the Netherlands now dependent only on whom you hate?

The question Wilders raised may have been in poor taste; but the answer, arguably in even poorer taste, came from the people, who are entitled to a country in which they can voice their frustration and be heard.

Isn't this protection, too, what democracy is supposed to be about?

The Netherlands is hardly alone in limiting speech it calls "free." In Germany, "incitement of popular hatred" is punishable by five years in prison. In Iceland, insulting a person on basis of nationality, race, religion, or sexual preference can bring a two-year sentence. And earlier this year, Swedish Democratic Party member Michael Hess was fined SK32,000 (about $5000) for "insulting Muslims" when he asserted that rape is "deeply ingrained in Islamic culture."

The Dutch Public Prosecutor's Office has gone after Wilders before: In a lengthy, four-year battle over statements he made to the press in 2007, in which he described Islam as "fascist," Wilders ultimately emerged triumphant.

This time, however, the prosecutors apparently think they have a stronger case. More than 6,400 complaints followed the "Fewer! Fewer!" episode, they claim, suggesting that there was genuine harm done.

But the right of free expression also guarantees the freedom of ideas, states attorney Sheldon Nahmod, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. Banning speech does nothing to ban the ideas themselves. It only stifles dialogue. But it is through dialogue and the open exchange of ideas that a society, now free, can learn and grow.

Comment on this item

29 Reader Comments

WabiSabi • Nov 8, 2014 at 22:58

We didn't experience the horrors of Nazism firsthand. To Americans, free speech should be an obvious right in a modern society. For Europeans, free speech against a minority led to libel-driven hatred, that escalated into the murder of millions.
A European in the 1920s likely couldn't imagine such a thing happening. Not in Europe. Not in Germany. Not in the twentieth century.
Many of the societal pressures present in 1930s Germany are present in Europe today, as they are in our own country. Those of us who understand this have a legitimate concern.

Reply->

Reticulator • Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56

Makes one wonder why the country went to all the expense and trouble of defeating Hitler.

Reply->

Luis • Nov 5, 2014 at 23:46

The article, as a whole, makes great sense--on the other hand, the question must be asked, "How is 'do you want more Moroccans, or fewer?' and 'fewer, fewer' in poor and poorer taste? Exactly how?

Honestly, this is a betrayal of common sense, of the natural freedom that humans have as part of our existence. The Dutch have been really the leaders in this kind of insanity and now it is peaking--we don't see how it could get much worse. Belching, maybe, could be considered an insult to someone and worthy of execution? Really, Nederlanders, pay attention to Geert, and pull yourselves away this idiotic direction.

No more tulips, cheese, Gulden Drak from Holland for us until we see some little bit of sanity regarding freedom of speech.

Reply->

peter38a • Oct 30, 2014 at 11:28

How could Wilder's question or any question be in poor taste? How do you find out answers without asking questions? Does freedom of speech mean that only questions and statements may be freely voiced if they are in good taste? Who is to decide what is good and bad taste? Are any of my questions in poor taste, even criminally so, is it hemlock time again? And lastly I see that the continent that produced Fascism, Nazism and Communism once again finds freedom of speech an uncomfortable freedom.

Reply->

p3orion • Oct 29, 2014 at 12:42

Offense is, by its very nature, subjective, but law protecting speech must be objective. If there is to be speech at all, it must not be subject to the sensibilities of the most easily-offended person who hears it. Speech to which no one objects needs no protection.

Reply->

Regina Schiller • Oct 28, 2014 at 19:40

After this article my eyes are opened. In my country of free speech, in Germany, why did I use the name of a relative to write my comment: because I am worried about getting disadvantaged in my job as an officer, when I blame the decision of a German court in a comment? On the other side I can say that the main-stream media are coming under pressure, because the followers on independent German and Austrian blogs are growing day by day and the most important print medias like DER SPIEGEL are gradually losing readers. I think that all important information are in the internet but they often are intentionally discreet, because the media know that most of people don't have time and interest to look for them. I see that the most of German people don't dare to critizise Islam, because you are looked upon as Islamophobe, but when you talk to them, their opinions make a really distinction to the main-stream media.

Reply->

Schneider • Oct 28, 2014 at 16:01

Is the criminalization of hate speech in the Netherlands now dependent only on whom you hate?

Moreover, the dutch government tried to encourage people to file legal complaints by distributing forms filled out on advance by the police, visit possible 'victims' at home and continuous selective one-sided media coverage in which Mr. Wilders was criminalized.

If the partisan judges decide to press charges and convict GW, the basic principle of all people being equal by dutch law is finally put to rest. A better example of information & confirmation bias does not exist.

Reply->

Dennis Richardson • Oct 28, 2014 at 13:43

European governments promoting this diversity plan are NOT brain dead liberals, they have an ultimate agenda and are thoughtful liberals. These liberals in government want to risk inevitable conflict of cultures that are not compatible. Is not the real problem, socialism itself? The Dutch are not having enough children, the demographics say that these immigrants must solve the problem of required taxation for retiring native Dutch. Will these immigrants eventually pay higher taxes than the native Dutch? Same problem in Germany. Will civil wars in Europe be the result. Geert Wilders is wiser than his government. Too bad this demographics problem is coming to America also.

Reply->

Alan Bramley • Oct 28, 2014 at 08:08

When will they start burning books that do not comply with the states concept of 'free speech'When one firstly denies free expression then it is shortly followed by total repression

Reply->

Doug Mayfield • Oct 28, 2014 at 06:34

Mr. Wilders is to be commended for his courage and the Dutch, especially those who want to prosecute him, should be ashamed.

But what's happening is no real surprise. All around the world, the Left is doing its damnedest to stamp out freedom and individual rights and replace them them with some form of socialist police state.

In order for that to happen, freedom of speech must criminalized and then eradicated on threat of imprisonment.

Anyone who values freedom and individual rights whether Left wing, Right wing, or in between, should condemn what is happening to Mr. Wilders.

Reply->

Mike • Oct 28, 2014 at 00:53

"Geert Wilders, the controversial right-wing Dutch Parliamentarian best known for his stance against Muslims and Muslim immigration."

The above is the popular meme in the media. However, on multiple occasions Wilders has stated that he has no opposition to Muslims but to the Koran and he doesn't consider them one in the same. He has also stated on multiple occasions that he has no problem with Muslim immigrants as long as they agree to accept the culture and values of the Netherlands. What he objects to is Muslims immigrants who want to live in self segregated communities under Muslim law and live off the social benefits given immigrants by the Netherlands government.

Reply->

Penny Bell • Oct 27, 2014 at 23:32

We can easily cite hundreds of cases across Western Democracies where local Western political commentators, politicians themselves, authors, journalists, public speakers and public figures generally, have been hauled before Courts for 'speaking too freely'. This in itself is a paradox, given the latest generation's penchant for unbridled free speech. So why suddenly are we having to curtail this once prized freedom?

The paradoxical progression of this has been caused by the influx of Islamic fundamentalism and radical Islam reaching our shores, bringing with it 'hate speech' ... something which previous European generations had neither seen nor heard. A new thing, a wave of public declarations of undisciplined, outspoken, crude and rude expressions of hate and intolerance typical only of Islamic fundamentalist followers.

The interesting thing is that we never read of any radical fundamentalist leaders being prosecuted for hate speeches, yet they brought it here, whilst we read all the time about our own Western public figures getting into hot water over making a slightly indiscreet reference to the problem being Islamic.

The problem is those who govern us have become intimidated by the Islamic fundamentalist radicals allowing them to get away with the very thing they will not tolerate from us - i.e., any criticism at all, yet we allow them to openly and shockingly declare that we are all infidels, that they intend to take over our nations and impose Sharia Law, with many declaring they want us all dead. I have yet to see any of these speakers hauled through the Courts for hate speeches, for sedition or subversion, yet they are engaged in all three.

What is wrong with our leaders and the bureaucrats who invent all of this 'politically correct' baloney, let alone the idiots who vote for and support its implementation. It is being reversed against us and used to gag us, thereby preventing us from defending ourselves, from defending our Western culture, our Western way of life.

Shouldn't people call a spade a spade and let anyone offended by it take the other to court, if they will. We don't need hate speech laws and all this other bloated legal swill. Use the simple defamation, slander, sedition and subversion laws. These laws - always in place - were and are more than adequate. Leave it at that and remove the gag which the Islamic leaders have pressured democratic govts. to implement, only to then reverse these idiotic laws against our societies, in order to gag us. Removing the hate speech weapon removes the ability for radical Islam to use it against us. Alternatively, if the West insists on keeping these ridiculous laws, then it must be prepared to use them against the intolerant, no matter who they are, just as they relentlessly use them against the West.

The fools are all those who are prepared to tolerate those who are intolerant - but only if the intolerant are not Westerners. Governments need to forget this tolerance crap where the intolerant are active and get on with protecting our Western Cultural way, before those tolerant of Islamic INtolerance destroy it.

Reply->

pongidae rex • Oct 27, 2014 at 16:56

When you can no longer name the enemy of freedom, the enemy has won.When you can no longer offend the enemy of freedom, the enemy has won.When you can no longer even acknowledge that the enemy of freedom exists, the enemy stands triumphant with his boot on your neck.Democracy in the West was won after a hard, bloody fight lasting generations. To watch a single generation of political imbeciles squander it in the name of a suicidal political fad called multiculturalism is an epic tragedy in the history of Western Civilization.

Reply->

Don Krausz • Oct 27, 2014 at 13:46

Very interesting, well researched and reasoned.

Just one thought: For those who support Wilders' question, would their reaction have been the same had someone asked: "Do you want more Jews here?"

Reply->

Yocheved Don Krausz • Oct 27, 2014 at 21:22

I am completely fine with the question being aimed at Jews. At least we would know where we weren't wanted, and would have the good sense to get out. I prefer my enemies in my face, not behind my back with a knife.

BTW, many of my friends are Moroccan Jews, and I'm sure they'd agree with me.

I've had a "fangirl crush" on Wilders for years. Too bad he can't run for president of the US.

Reply->

eli hubara Don Krausz • Oct 27, 2014 at 23:56

Last i heard, Jews do not cause problems to a host society. If anything, great contributions are made by Jews wherever they end up, willingly or not.In principle Don Krausz's question is fair. Withstanding the test of reality? Well, that's a different question.

Reply->

Clare Spark, Ph.D. • Oct 27, 2014 at 11:36

We can blame the entire "progressive movement" for originating what this article calls "hate speech" and others call "political correctness." I have written extensively on this question.

Reply->

Carl • Oct 27, 2014 at 11:31

Isn't it amazing that the Muslims can say whatever they want to and are not prosecuted, but just asking a question can get you a jail sentence. It is already in the US when race is concerned. The do-gooders have created a one way street for freedom of speech.

Reply->

Elisheva • Oct 27, 2014 at 11:09

Our world is so upside down trying to be tolerant of evil that our leaders have lost their bearings. Geert Wilders is a shining light in a dark world. He is so amazing. Most people would just give up trying to save our civilization with so much resistance. We are lucky to have him in the forefront as a true leader. Thanks for the article.

Reply->

Laurie Elisheva • Oct 27, 2014 at 16:27

I have followed Geert Wilders since he initially went public with his views on Islam. I thank him for giving me a reason to make a toast and drink to him - to the insights and ideals that he expresses, understands and promotes.
Cheers! Bottoms up! He speaks for me and when I hear him (or read his words) I smile, nod my head in admiration and agreement and wish the rest of the civilized world listens to him as well.

Reply->

Phil Elisheva • Oct 28, 2014 at 15:52

That's true but laughable when you consider they gave one to Obama for NOTHING (other than being a shining example of political correctness). The credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize was tenuous based on the other laughable presentation, again awarded due to it's PC implications, to Al Gore. All credibility was demolished when they gave it to Obama.

Reply->

EileenG • Oct 27, 2014 at 09:41

People like Geert Wilders are present day heroes.

Reply->

Bart Benschop • Oct 27, 2014 at 09:05

Dear Sir,

On 19 March 2014 just after 21:00 hours in the Grand Café de Tijd on het Plein in The Hague, Geert Wilders in front of crowd and a television camera in the local government elections asked if people wanted more or less Moroccans in the Netherlands. The reply of the crowd was a resounding 'less, less ...' and that some sixteen times and Mr. Wilders replied "Now, then we are going to sort that out' or words to that effect.

This is serious stuff in politically correct Holland. In The Hague about 20% of the citizens are Muslim and in some parts around 50%.In The Hague the Muslims are publicly expressing hatred for Jews but there are no complaints about that.Holding up the black ISIS flag, the crowd of some 33,000 in The Hague chanted in Arabic, "Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning."

The poor dogs in The Hague are not even spared; some Muslims in the city are pushing to ban dogs. Mr.Hasan Küçük, who is a The Hague City Councillor proposed to ban dogs in the city as they are offensive to Muslims and wants a dog jihad.

Neither are Dutch girls safe, they are groomed, pimped and raped in large numbers by predominantly Moroccans.

Kind regards,

Bart Benschop

Reply->

Edward Cline • Oct 27, 2014 at 08:45

There really isn't any point in arguing the virtues and benefits of freedom of speech while presumably addressing the Dutch Prosecutor's Office or anyone in the government in the Netherlands who wants to see Wilders lynched. Cringing fear of Islamic retribution is what dulls their minds and allows them to want to punish Wilders. All the personnel connected with "lawfully" punishing Wilders are dhimmis; they have submitted to Islam and are hoisted on their own petards. They're lost, lost to reason, lost to redemption. Courageous and true words about freedom of speech go in one ear and out the other. They don't want discussion or debate about Islam or the Islamification of the Netherlands. They are afraid of being called names, like "Islamophobes" or "anti-Moroccan bigots." But, it's too late for that, because no matter how many concessions these people make to Islam and the threat of Muslim riots and anarchy in that country, those people are already infidels, kaffirs, the conquered to the Islamic tribe in their midst. They're already condemned to a slow death at the hands of the Muslims. It seems that when the Dutch authorities move to punish Wilders, they also want to punish the Dutch people. They may as well be telling the Dutch (and I mean the non-Muslim Dutch): "Because you are' bigoted' against the Ebola virus and people infected with it, we're going to let them into the country, too. That'll teach you to keep your mouths shut." The two species of viciousness complement each other.

Reply->

Ephesian • Oct 27, 2014 at 08:44

Precisely so! However, the line "it is through dialogue and the open exchange of ideas that a society, now free,can learn and grow." is exactly why free speech must be curtailed at all costs! We can't have the situation where people actually start to learn for themselves the true nature of Islam, rather than the fairytale, idealised censored version already served up to us by our own governments and press. My uttermost admiration goes out to this beacon of light that is Geert Wilders, a truly fine man.... and that is my democratic right to express that view, to all the bleeding heart brigades out there.

Reply->

Jenny Ephesian • Oct 29, 2014 at 09:19

I am Dutch my self and live in Canada.We need more MORE MORE MORE people like Geert Wilders.

Reply->

Bent Jensen • Oct 27, 2014 at 08:30

Why do you use the label "right wing" about Wilders? Are you right wing if you are against a totalitarian ideology?We have the same sort of legislation in Denmark (also in Sweden), and quite a few people have been punished for "offending islam". On the other hand, a "Danish" imam who called Jews the offspring of apes and swine goes free.

Reply->

Richard D. Field • Oct 27, 2014 at 08:18

I support Geert wilders 100%. I am a Canadian WW2 war veteran and helped liberate Holland. Those people and politicians in Holland that succumb to bowing before Muslims are not the Dutchmen I knew nor the people that I have visited many times since in Holland. These Islamic Sharia law appeasers are traitors to all those who gave their lives and time in the Dutch underground and all those Canadians British Polish and Americans that ground out that horrific winter of 1944-45. I know Geert and have spoken to him many times. He is my hero!

I would also like to thank the Gatestone Institute for their publication of Al-Baghdadi's Declaration of war on the western world in fact on all the non-Muslim world. "the truth cannot be hate speech"

Reply->

Hanna • Oct 27, 2014 at 07:01

In your article you are asking a very important question: Is the criminalization of hate speech in the Netherlands now dependent on whom you hate? The answer is a very strong YES. It is perfectly OK in the Netherlands (and in many other European countries) to use hate speech against Jews and Christians. I do have a question of my own, though: where are the so-called MODERATE Muslims? Hanna.

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, a prisoner in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to death as a minor, faces "death by crucifixion" after a final appeal has been dismissed. He was arrested in 2012 when he was just 17, during a crackdown on anti-government protests in the Shiite province of Qatif. According to the International Business Times, Al-Nimr was accused by the authorities of participation in illegal protests and of firearms offences, despite there being no evidence to justify the latter charge.

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.